It seems to me, from what we currently know, that the arrest warrant was NOT issued as a result of Dr. M having left the state against instructions to stay in the state that were given to her on the basis of the civil lawsuit against her.

That in itself would NOT produce a "felony fugitive from justice" charge. So, Cort, I don't think you have it right. Some new charge is in progress that we have not seen yet.

Important to note: For one state to request another to apprehend and extradite a fugitive from justice, the person in question need NOT have been indicted on the underlying criminal charge yet. So whatever charge is underlying the fugitive from justice charge, it may not be in the public record yet. There IS a missing piece of information here.

"HUMAN BEINGS come first. THINGS, like data, no matter how important they are, are down on the list."

Do you live in USA.....where MONEY comes first? Maybe on your personal list in life where patents and major medical discoveries are not part of your world, friends come first; but in the world of science, medicine, politics and business....Money comes first.......this is why we have seen nothing coming out of wpi (in terms of treatment) for years....they were waiting for things to line up so the money could start flowing in before they gave out any info at all.....unfortunately, the judy relationship fell part and now the patients will probably never learn what was discovered at wpi and how to regain their health.

No matter what happens b/t judy and wpi the patients are once again the big losers.

Here is the legal description of the charges that Judy Mikovits was arrested under.

CodeC Sec:1551.1 Level:Felony Fugitive From Justice

1551.1. The arrest of a person may also be lawfully made by any
peace officer, without a warrant, upon reasonable information that
the accused stands charged in the courts of any other state with a
crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year, or that the person has been convicted of a crime punishable in
the state of conviction by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
and thereafter escaped from confinement or violated the terms of his
or her bail, probation or parole. When so arrested the accused shall
be taken before a magistrate with all practicable speed and
complaint shall be made against him or her under oath setting forth
the ground for the arrest as in Section 1551.

Now maybe somebody can figure what this means from a legal standpoint. A reporter did state that the police in Ventura were not acting on information coming from the police department in Reno -- it apparently came from some federal department. I personally believe, we are missing a whole lot of information that will come out as events happen.

Click to expand...

Thanks Kina.

Well then: 'Fugitive From Justice' in law does not necessarily mean 'fugitive from justice' as any normal person would understand it, it seems, and that seem to explain that mystery.

The only part that can apply is:

"upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of any other state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"

The questions then are: does the writ we know about represent a "charge in the courts" and would the offences referred to in the writ we know about be punishable by imprisonment for over one year.

Anyone know the answer? Could the "charge in the courts" of Nevada conceivably relate to the writ? If not, the implication seems to be that Dr Mikovits must indeed have been charged in some way we don't yet know about. That separate charge could perhaps still concern the same matter as the writ?

I was told by somebody whose had experience with the law that the reason the Judge imposed an order restraining Dr. Mikovits from leaving the state was probably because she felt there was a good chance a) that Dr. Mikovits had the materials and b) that she was not acting honestly with the WPI when she denied that she didn't have them.

If you look at this objectively I think its hard to come to any other conclusion...the materials were apparently present on the WPI's premises until the day Dr. Mikovits was fired - and then they disappeared for some reason unrelated to the firing??? There is no direct proof but the odds that somebody else just happened to pick them up for some other reason must be very low; low enough for the judge to conclude that Dr. Mikovits should not be allowed to leave the state.

Click to expand...

Cort are you a lawyer ? are you a judge ? no your not . There is only one person who can declare that Judy is guilty of anything and that will be the judge overseeing the proceedings . You are not that judge .

Regardless of what you have been told which in a court of law would be classed as hearsay as its via a third party Judy is like any other person charged with a crime INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY . you seem to be having a bit of a problem understanding that . Now can you please stop all this speculation when you obviously do not know anything about what has happened between Judy and WPI .How on earth can Judy possibly have a fair trial with people like you already coming to the conclusion that she is guilty ? she cant .

.the materials were apparently present on the WPI's premises until the day Dr. Mikovits was fired - and then they disappeared for some reason unrelated to the firing??? Apparently Cort thats what youve written Apparently that does not mean they were . So I am looking at things objectively . I also believe everyone regardless of what crime they are charged with is entitled to a fair trial free from bias .

I was told by somebody whose had experience with the law that the reason the Judge imposed an order restraining Dr. Mikovits from leaving the state was probably because she felt there was a good chance a) that Dr. Mikovits had the materials and b) that she was not acting honestly with the WPI when she denied that she didn't have them.

If you look at this objectively I think its hard to come to any other conclusion..

Click to expand...

With respect Cort, I beg to differ. Logically speaking, unless there is evidence Mikovits has the material, she doesn't have it by law. A 'good chance', probably based solely on statements from WPI, indicates there is no evidence Mikovits has the material, other than WPI''s stated belief. The judge did not say there was evidence Mikovits had the material, just that she felt there was a good chance.

A legal conviction does not work on good chance. It works on absence of doubt. A 'good chance' may be enough to get Mikovits arrrested, to limit possible damage, in case she did have the material, but if it is not proven she had the material she will not be convicted. Your point b does not necessarily follow from point a. To say Mikovits was not acting honestly, even if you are repeating someone else (particularly an unnamed source), opens you to libel actions in a major way.

Given the comments by moderators on this site, I am surprised that such a statement is allowed to remain. A very risky strategy, if there is a real chance of a libel suit. And it appears there is, as Stuart Jones from Bad Science may soon discover if his hearing goes against him. I would not be surprised if his is just the first. It would not surprise me if other members of that forum (whose sanctioned comments against Mikovits appeared on this forum) find themselves in trouble. What you need to be most concerned about is if there is evidence that there was collusion between forum members to tarnish Mikovits good name. That will support an argument of intent and dramatically increase the seriousness of the case. In my opinion and in the opinion of many members of this forum there was. Particularly when the Bad Science mob were sanctioned and protected on this forum. That is all you need to press a libel suit.

Even those members of Bad Science who didn't openly denigrate Mikovits, but supported the push against her could be brought into such a case, if collusion was proven. And there were members who were quite subtle about their opposition to Mikovits, but open in their support for those who were outspoken. Particularly in the use of the likes such posts received. I note there was an obvious pattern to the use of the like button on the anti Mikovits posts which could possibly be tracked.

Irrespective, whether or not your views about Mikovits' culpability bear out, Cort, the last thing you could call your statement is objective. Particularly when in the past you have a history of being critical of Mikovits.

Around the same time as the Q & A with WPI on FB in October, when WPI was questioned about where Judy's termination left the research, does anyone remember reassurances from the WPI that all necessary materials were 'safely tucked away'?

Perhaps someone who took screen shots before the material was deleted can comment.

Around the same time as the Q & A with WPI on FB in October, when WPI was questioned about where Judy's termination left the research, does anyone remember reassurances from the WPI that all necessary materials were 'safely tucked away'?

Perhaps someone who took screen shots before the material was deleted can comment.

With respect Cort, I beg to differ. Logically speaking, unless there is evidence Mikovits has the material, she doesn't have it by law. A 'good chance', probably based solely on statements from WPI, indicates there is no evidence Mikovits has the material, other than WPI''s stated belief. The judge did not say there was evidence Mikovits had the material, just that she felt there was a good chance.

A legal conviction does not work on good chance. It works on absence of doubt. A 'good chance' may be enough to get Mikovits arrrested, to limit possible damage, in case she did have the material, but if it is not proven she had the material she will not be convicted. Your point b does not necessarily follow from point a. To say Mikovits was not acting honestly, even if you are repeating someone else (particularly an unnamed source), opens you to libel actions in a major way.

Given the comments by moderators on this site, I am surprised that such a statement is allowed to remain. A very risky strategy, if there is a real chance of a libel suit. And it appears there is, as Stuart Jones from Bad Science may soon discover if his hearing goes against him. I would not be surprised if his is just the first. It would not surprise me if other members of that forum (whose sanctioned comments against Mikovits appeared on this forum) find themselves in trouble. What you need to be most concerned about is if there is evidence that there was collusion between forum members to tarnish Mikovits good name. That will support an argument of intent and dramatically increase the seriousness of the case. In my opinion and in the opinion of many members of this forum there was. Particularly when the Bad Science mob were sanctioned and protected on this forum. That is all you need to press a libel suit.

Even those members of Bad Science who didn't openly denigrate Mikovits, but supported the push against her could be brought into such a case, if collusion was proven. And there were members who were quite subtle about their opposition to Mikovits, but open in their support for those who were outspoken. Particularly in the use of the likes such posts received. I note there was an obvious pattern to the use of the like button on the anti Mikovits posts which could possibly be tracked.

Irrespective, whether or not your views about Mikovits' culpability bear out, Cort, the last thing you could call your statement is objective. Particularly when in the past you have a history of being critical of Mikovits.

Click to expand...

I believe the Libel laws of the US vs most other countries are rather different. I think Judy M. would be considered a public figure, therefore much can be said about her without needing to worry much, and others involved in this matter also. At least that is my impression of the law.

GG

PS I think everyone should settle down and let this play out, the truth will come out eventually!

I believe the Libel laws of the US vs most other countries are rather different. I think Judy M. would be considered a public figure, therefore much can be said about her without needing to worry much, and others involved in this matter also. At least that is my impression of the law.

GG

PS I think everyone should settle down and let this play out, the truth will come out eventually!

Click to expand...

Hopefully most would not consider Mikovits an entertainer or politician, so not sure how you contrived to describe her as public figure. As far as I am aware she is a medical researcher and if there is damaging libel regarding her role as a researcher then that would be the basis for civil action even in the US. BTW even public figures can sue if they consider their reputation or their career has been impugned without basis (and in my experience it is these people who sue most frequently, particularly in the US). Since the WPI has begun to go down that road, it is more likely that other parties will.

There is an interesting point here, that perhaps in a court of law we may see some progress towards helping ME/CFS patients. I know this is wishful thinking. But the Myhill/Jonas development is pure gold for us and Mikovits seems to have the same sort of personality.

As far as the truth coming out. Well that rarely happens - at least not in this lifetime - especially when there are commercial interests involved. It was probably part of Mikovits contract that she not discuss the terms of her dismissal. Explanations by WPI have been couched in nebulous self-serving PR-speak lacking detail. Any detailed explanation is likely to come thru a third party with the usual disclaimers of unreliability.

As far as discussing the issue, I am puzzled by attempts or suggestions to close it down. I really can't see any negatives, provided baiting etc doesn't occur. In some respects this sort of discussion could be cathartic for those still trying to come to terms with the disappointments of the last month or so.

Yes that is from John 18. I highly doubt that the whole truth will ever be known in this fiasco. Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? What's the truth that came out there? People are funny, they think truth floats to the top or something.

Yes that is from John 18. I highly doubt that the whole truth will ever be known in this fiasco. Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? What's the truth that came out there? People are funny, they think truth floats to the top or something.

Click to expand...

I agree, with you, Paris. There are many, many instances in our world in which those who actually know the truth of a matter have very good reasons, from their point of view, not to share it with others. The result is that it is very difficult for the average individual citizen to know whether he/she actually has the true story about many things.

I'm not sure that that is what Pilate meant, though. I think he might have been cynical about whether the concept of truth is actually a valid concept. Not too different from the postmodern concept, I think. Something like truth is not absolute, but can be whatever you want it to be. I believe that there is absolute truth, but that finding it out can be quite a challenge.

Yes that is from John 18. I highly doubt that the whole truth will ever be known in this fiasco. Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? What's the truth that came out there? People are funny, they think truth floats to the top or something.

Click to expand...

I agree, with you, Paris. There are many, many instances in our world in which those who actually know the truth of a matter have very good reasons, from their point of view, not to share it with others. The result is that it is very difficult for the average individual citizen to know whether he/she actually has the true story about many things.

I'm not sure that that is what Pilate meant, though. I think he might have been cynical about whether the concept of truth is actually a valid concept. Not too different from the postmodern concept, I think. Something like truth is not absolute, but can be whatever you want it to be. I believe that there is absolute truth, but that finding it out can be quite a challenge.

<snip>
I'm not sure that that is what Pilate meant, though. I think he might have been cynical about whether the concept of truth is actually a valid concept. Not too different from the postmodern concept, I think. Something like truth is not absolute, but can be whatever you want it to be. I believe that there is absolute truth, but that finding it out can be quite a challenge.

Best regards,

Rich

Click to expand...

The moon is one, but on agitated water it produces many reflections. Similarly ultimate reality is one, yet it appears to be many in a mind agitated by thoughts.

What must Dr. Peterson be thinking? Lucky to get out of there? His name still on the institute. Don't answer any knocks on the doors, could be next?

What's the job posting going to look like over at WPI? Interviewee - But you put your last director in prison - W PI - Well lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place. I doubt you'll end up in jail.

If Judy didn't take or direct to take lab materials or documentation or samples I'm sure laying around her house somewhere is some piece of paper that's duplicated over at W pi that she should have shred or not possessed. When I was working I brought home work too. Never had the only original but if they searched my house 14 years later I'm sure they could find some document they say I shouldn't have. In other words if they strike out in their search I'm sure they'll find something, no matter how insignificant, to justify the jailing.

If Judy's claim that AW asked her to do the unethical sharing of cell lines for a purpose not in the grant then to me justice is having the police have her spend double the amount of time Judy has in prison already.

Excuse my ranting I'm upset beyond belief about this. This is gonna wedge people into different camps here like never before.

Gee whiskers - couldn't they have sat down and sorted out differences in the beginning before coming to this disaster for everyone. And the way science and discovery goes has to throw up some dead ends - and some more possibilities to pursue too. What was so awful that the WPI sacked JM in the first place - personalties ? science ? commercial interests ? - that is the key to us. Would someone there explain.

And whilst the WPI is pursuing "rights" we are millions waiting the research findings and understanding of Myalgic Encephalomyalitis.